Soniferous Fish of SEQ

[Slider]

For those that might find this interesting -

A soniferous fish is a fish that vocalises by drumming muscles against the swim bladder which amplifies the sound. Most species have several different vocalisations and as many as 9 different vocalisations from 1 species have been recorded. Generally though, fish will have one they use when spawning, one for alarm and one for feeding. Some fish have weak vocalisations that may only travel 50m in the water whilst others such as yellowfin tuna can be heard with hydrophones from 65km away.

Today I started making a list of species that exist in SEQ that have been recorded elsewhere in the world on hydrophones and their vocalisations placed on the world wide database of fish vocalisations. So far the following are confirmed as being soniferous.

Dart, Tailor, Mulloway, Sea Mullet, Tarpon, Bonefish, Snub Nosed Dart, Golden Trevally, Giant Trevally, Big Eye Trevally, Estuary Cod, Snapper, Garfish, Catfish, Groper, Yellowfin Tuna, longtail Tuna, Mackerel Tuna,

So pretty well all surf species that have been studied are soniferous. Bream and whiting have never been studied as they mainly only exist in Australian waters and we trail the rest of the world in this department by decades. I'll bet my ring gear that they too are soniferous though.

It would be safe to say that all the trevally and cods are soniferous and black jew have been recorded in West Australia. From memory all lutjanids are soniferous and it would seem that the vast majority of fish in fresh and salt water are in fact soniferous.

I'll add to the list as time permits.

Lindsay

[HeadBanger]

Thanks for that information Lindsay, found it very interesting.

Would it be safe to say that as a fish grows larger, its vocalisations would be stronger?

Would territorial species, such as mangrove jack give off 'aggressive' vocalisations towards larger fish (not prey) entering their territory? Or is there no information regarding that yet?

Cheers,
Kaidon

[Slider]

Kaidon, as fish grow larger their vocalisations would become louder due to a larger swim bladder and greater amplification. This is how researchers can determine the size of fish being listened to on a hydrophone. In various parts of the world, stock assessments are carried out using static and mobile hydrophones which determine stocks (numbers, size, sometimes sex) and spawning locations without the requirement for tagging or sampling. A fish's vocalisation can positively identify the species - once its vocalisation is on the database. This is part of my motivation for listing the species that are found in Australian waters and that have been recorded overseas. If Fisheries in Australia are to manage our fisheries to the best possible standard and accurate stock assessments and spawning locations established, this available technology needs to be implemented. As it stands, a level of assumption and guesswork is our standard of fishery management.
As to aggressive vocalisations - I dare say that some species would have such in their repertoire, but these species I would expect would live in murky water where 'body language' is less effective than it would be in clear water. With most of these things, attributes evolve for a reason. But that is guesswork on my part as I haven't seen any literature that delves into this field - and haven't looked either.

[Slider]

Another interesting fact about soniferous fish - Dolphins target soniferous fish over non - soniferous fish because they can hear them. When fish hear dolphins nearby, they stop vocalising in the hope that the dolphins won't find them. So when you hook a tailor in the surf and see a dolphin heading towards you from a kilometre away (as I have countless times), it's because the dolphin has heard the tailor's alarm vocalisation. Remembering that dolphins don't have a lateral line to detect vibration as a fish can. Further, it is incorrect that dolphins locate fish using their sonar from distances. They initially locate the fish from the vocalisations of the prey, then when the fish stop vocalising on hearing the dolphins, the sonar comes into play and at a closer range where the sonar is effective.

[Slider]

Let's go one step further and bring in an angling scenario involving vocalisations and hydrophones. It will occur (if it hasn't already) that an angler will be able to listen for a target species on a hydrophone dropped over the side of the boat, determine what direction it is from the boat and how far away. The angler can then drive the boat to the fish and throw lures at the location that the fish has been determined to be. It is envisaged that standard electronics on a fishing boat will include the gps, sounder and hydrophone/computer that will identify the fish species being heard on the hydrophone and its location.

[Slider]

Also, fish can be attracted to a location by recording prey vocalisations, or prey been fed on by predators and those recordings being played into the water. For instance - if we wanted to attract spotty mackerel to a location (and they are in the general neck of the woods), then playing a recording of say anchovy being fed on by spotty mackerel into the water will attract the fish to where we want them to be. This technology is being developed at the moment and has been demonstrated to work any number of times. It isn't quite as simple as that, but that is the gist of it.

[HeadBanger]

Thanks for the reply, finding it all very interesting.

Almost seems like playing god, in regards to recording fish vocalisations to bring fish on the chew in the general area. Then again, I suppose people felt the same way with the invention of sounders. I'm sure it's things like these that can really effect both our commercial and recreational fisheries?

Thanks again,
Kaidon

[cuzzamundi]

Thanks for the info, Slider. I always find these posts very informative.

I've actually wondered over the years what is happening when I'm castnetting, as quite often, I'll work an area, and upon netting more mullet, the poddies that are elready in the bucket of water go berserk for a period of time. It's as if they can sense the other fish being caught/trapped. Maybe this is all due to vocalisation? I find it fascinating that fish in a bucket ten or more metres away can tell that other of their kind are being pulled from the water. Could this be the case? I'm not sure, and I guess it would depend on whether their vocalisations can travel through the air.

Great topic.

Cuzza

[Slider]

Is a bit scary the fish attraction thing Kaidon. Who knows where technology like that is heading as far as maintaining the world's fisheries. However, I think that there is a limiting factor in the over use of the technology. Fish won't continually be drawn to a sound source if they continually find that there is no reward there. And if they are continually netted when they do respond to the sound, then they would eventually start to swim the other way. Which may have consequences to their normal day to day prey locating in that they won't trust 'real' sounds. It has already been established that fish won't continually be attracted to the same sound being played into the water and that variations of the sound are required to keep attracting the fish. ie changing prey species, predator species, prey and predator species.

Cuzza, there certainly hasn't been any studies into that one - but, there is no reason why the mullet in the bucket wouldn't hear the vocalisations of the mullet in the cast net. Sound travels much better in water - 5 times the speed that it does in air and for far greater distances. But fish sounds do travel through air - we've all heard trevally vocalisations when we catch them, though these vocalisations are at abnormally high frequency for a fish. But not all vocalisations are as strong as a trevally's or at such a high frequency. So it boils down to whether the mullet vocalisations are strong enough to travel through air the distance between the cast net and the bucket. An interesting experiment that could be conducted by altering distances between and seeing at what distance the mullet stop reacting. Excellent observation by the way Cuzza.

We have to keep in mind that most fish vocalisations are at frequencies too low for humans to hear and a mullet's vocalisation wouldn't be heard by humans.

Has anyone noticed that when fishing for a species other than trevally, that the target fish go off the bite for a while if a trevally is caught? Is a regular thing when fishing for tailor.

It has been found that the strength of a fish's vocalisation is directly proportionate to the size of their otolith (ear). Which stands to reason as a fish with a refined sense of hearing would also have refined communicating abilities.

On sound in water - a humpback whale's vocalisations at the Antartic can be heard by another humpback at the equator providing there isn't a land mass in between to stop the sound. Sound in water travels for enormous distances. Thus the ability to hear yellowfin tuna from 65km on a hydrophone. But a fish's acoustic abilities are more refined at listening to sounds in the water than is a man made hydrophone. So when researchers are able to hear a species' 'weak' vocalisations at just 50m, then fish are likely to hear that same vocalisation at far greater distances.

[caster226]

this is like watching the local alcoholic wandering along the road. the final destination is always the same.

[Slider]

Having just read every one of your posts since joining this site caster, I notice a few things about you. Firstly, you are an expert on every fish, method of catching and every location known to man. Secondly, you seem to have an affinity with beach haulers, but little knowledge about the business at all. And thirdly, I can't find a single thread with fish you have caught despite telling everyone about the supposed fish you catch of every species known to man.
I will ask the question that others have already asked - what is your agenda? And why are you continually knocking me for doing my best to help recreational fishing? Is it just a jealousy thing you've got going?

Note to self - I should just ignore twits like caster.

[chisel]

Very interesting info Lindsay. Thanks for posting.

[sleepygreg]

Thanks Slider. Some extremely interesting information there. That would explain the 'prey wash' systems employed by many Gamefishing boats. I knew it worked, but not quite sure why. I suppose this would also link in with frequencies being experimented with in Shark attraction/deterence. Bloody fascinating.....more please?

Greg

[FishHunter]

Having just read every one of your posts since joining this site caster, I notice a few things about you. Firstly, you are an expert on every fish, method of catching and every location known to man. Secondly, you seem to have an affinity with beach haulers, but little knowledge about the business at all. And thirdly, I can't find a single thread with fish you have caught despite telling everyone about the supposed fish you catch of every species known to man.
I will ask the question that others have already asked - what is your agenda? And why are you continually knocking me for doing my best to help recreational fishing? Is it just a jealousy thing you've got going?

Note to self - I should just ignore twits like caster.

Very interesting reading, thanks

Unfortunately the internet abounds with people like this who feel that as they are safe behind their keyboard they can get away with anything. My inclination is to find them and punch them in the head

[bondy99]

Slider,

I like what I read, you should be a marine biologist or better still come over to uni and get some of those academics onboard and listen to reality instead of theory and computer modelling.

You getting any tailor your way? I'm itching to come up.

Cheers, Peter